Monthly Archives: June 2019

@AnnCoulter and @KTHopkins – Alt-Right BFFs

Ann Coulter has long been called America’s Katie Hopkins and Katie Hopkins has likewise been regarded as the British Ann Coulter. Why? They hold extremelhy similar views and confrontational styles. They frequently retweet and support one another.

Until their infamous meeting at Politicon, some jokingly pondered whether they were the same person.

Katie Hopkins – British Ann Coulter (Alt-Right)

Like Coulter, Hopkins expresses racist views and also regards herself as a courageous heroine.

Here are a few lowlights from Katie Hopkins (whose ideas are highly congruent with those of Ann Coulter):

  • Tweet: “Dear black people. If your lives matter why do you stab and shoot each other so much”
  • “I hear cries that he is a blithering idiot. I have often been called a deranged fool. But if this were true you could ignore me, ignore us, imaging the two of us shouting naked at the rain. It’s because we articulate sentiments repressed by the politically correct consensus that we have a voice”.
  • “I asked fair questions and I think it’s important that someone has the balls to speak out.”
  • Tweet: “Little sweaty jocks, sending us Ebola bombs in the form of sweaty Glaswegians just isn’t cricket. Scottish NHS sucks.”
  • Column (4/17/15): Hopkins compared migrants to “cockroaches” and “feral humans” who are “spreading like the norovirus.”

Like Coulter, Hopkins engages in fat shaming:

“Would I employ you if you were obese? No I would not. You would give the wrong impression to the clients of my business. I need people to look energetic, professional and efficient. If you are obese you look lazy. To call yourself ‘plus size’ is just a euphemism for being fat. Life is much easier when you’re thinner. Big is not beautiful, of course a job comes down to how you look.”

Like Coulter, Hopkins is misogynistic:

“I think women are really vicious in the work place, they’re really jealous, really competitive. Women are emotional, they cry in toilets. The sisterhood only extends as far as the kitchen door. Men talk in logic and rational terms, they don’t squark and make a noise.”

Like Coulter, Hopkins hates feminism:

“Women don’t want equal treatment, they couldn’t handle it if they got it. It’s a tough world out there. What a lot of women are actually looking for is special treatment. What women need to realise is that they have to toughen up.”

Like Coulter, Hopkins is obsessed with white genocide in South Africa (but not the genocide of other races or, even, of Christians in the Middle East):

“My kind are being slaughtered. Your kind are theiving farms and failing. Your kind turned the breadbasket of Africa into a barren wasteland, less fertile than @Julius_S_Malema

Hopkins called for a “Final Solution for Muslims,” not dissimilar to Coulter’s two-decade-long jihad against Islam (remember, Coulter wanted to kill all of them!):

“Yeah, though Hopkins started off as a conservative and, over a relatively short space of time, became a fascist. She’s called for a ‘Final Solution’ for Muslims (that’s how she lost her radio job) and described migrants as ‘cockroaches’.” [[Coulter has frequently called immigrants “cockroaches.”]]

Like Coulter, Hopkins is a provocateur:

“Provocation for provocation’s sake. No wit. No humor. No intelligence. So yes, like Ann Counter without the LBD.”

Naturally, the Left despises these two individuals just as they despise the entirety of the Alt-Right. (However, the Left often lumps in mainstream conservatives with the Alt-Right, failing to distinguish between the two.)

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis of Coulter’s own Alt-Right views.

Joker addresses the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, familial, sexual, and spiritual dimensions which have shaped the Ann Coulter that we know today and it highlights both the positives and the negatives of Coulter’s life and career.

Meet @AnnCoulter, Sociopath

Erstwhile conservative icon Ann Coulter can be charming and engaging, yet her inner sociopath often erupts in Twitter tirades, employment of elimination rhetoric, attacks on the recently deceased and bereaved, and vilification of whole swaths of humanity.

Yes, Ann Coulter can be – and often is – cruel!

Degrees of Sociopathy and Psychopathy

There is often a correlation between narcissism and sociopathy and/or psychopathy.

Coulter registers at the high end of the Sociopath Scale and is probably mid-range on the Psychopath Scale.

I have never seen Ann express or exhibit guilt over hurting people, whether personally or professionally. Indeed, she takes delight in provoking people, enjoys employing elimination rhetoric, and loves attacking the recently dead and grieving.

Ann experiences no guilt over anything and exhibits no shame in attacking and wounding others. But she does experience shame when it comes to herself. She hates criticism of herself, hates being viewed as a liar, racist, or fool. She feels shame when she fails to measure up to her various self-identities, such as beauty, brains, and balls. She feels shame when her jokes fall flat, her witticisms are proven witless, and her credentials are credibly challenged.

In other words, any shame Ann feels is because of how people view her as opposed to how she treats others. Her shame in inward-oriented, not outward-directed. The world could end tomorrow and she would be fine with that as long as the world loved her.

Twenty years ago, Ann boasted that she was obsessed with biographies of serial killers (“studies of serial killers”), saying, “I actually am sort of interested in it.”[1] Would she, herself, kill anyone? I doubt that. Does she take pleasure in the death of other people? Quite often. Did she, as a child, exhibit cruelty toward animals or insects? I don’t know. But, throughout her career as a journalist, she has exhibited cruelty toward her fellow human beings.[2]

Was Ann Coulter raped? Perhaps in college? (That could certainly be a causal factor.)

If so, that would explain her three-decade-long enmity toward feminism and ire over rape hoaxes as well as her zeal in advocating for and owning guns. As she emotionally vented on MSNBC, “Men’s hands are lethal weapons. … Every male I walk past, every male I walk past, I look at him knowing with his bare hands he could kill me, and I can do nothing. … But I have no option. I can’t kill somebody with my bare hands.”[3] (It is noteworthy that she was off-the-clock for that segment; she stayed longer to express her views, without being paid for her time.)

It might also explain her repeated claims of being raped not just as political allegory but, perhaps, as a means of subconsciously admitting to actual rape.

It might also explain her desire for rough sex (in which she wins or takes revenge). The Internet is populated with images of Ann as a dominatrix (created by fans and foes alike).

A psychologist clarified this for me (emphasis added): “Personally, she’s functional and most likely doesn’t kill people and animals by some driving need to do so, but her ideation probably veers in those directions. … Think fatal attraction material without the actions. … One can o learn to hide it if they aren’t committing violent acts. Many people who are sociopaths or psychopaths are very successful in life, but they aren’t serial killers or criminals, but they think like one. They restrain their darker impulses, however.”[4]

While Coulter is certainly not on the violent/homicidal end of the Psychopath Scale, she is certainly well positioned mid-range on that scale.

Simply put, she enjoys hurting people. Her words wound. They are calculated to do so with maximum effect. She wants her foes to be sputtering in rage.  Coulter is certainly a narcissist with a strong sociopathic streak and psychopathic tendencies.

There is an interconnectedness among narcissism, sociopathy, and psychopathy. The following chart compares and differentiates among them.

Another important aspect I’ve discovered is this:

Guilt is relational; shame is image-based, identity-based.

We see throughout Coulter’s life that she fails to express or exhibit guilt over her wrong behavior toward others. Guilt is utterly absent. But she does feel shame – shame over public exposure of her behavior and shame related to credible challenges to her own, deep-seated, self-identities.

The Clinton Affair

The 20th anniversary of Bill Clinton’s impeachment generated a slew of documentaries, some of which featured Coulter. Among them, Scandalous (FNC) and Truth and Lies: Monica and Bill (ABC).

Naturally, Coulter considered ABC’s to be the best of many such documentaries, primarily because she was heavily featured in it with close to a dozen segments featuring her.

Notable in ABC’s documentary were the number of Coulter soundbites in which she laughed as she was talking about the various ways in which Clinton harmed his female victims. I was reminded of some of Coulter’s appearances on MSNBC in early 1997 when she would gleefully recite from memory various portions of Paula Jones’ legal brief against Clinton, laughing at the accusations against Clinton – not caring that a real human being had experienced such pain and anguish.

 

Quadriplegic Lady or Dead Dog?

Sociopathy could have developed as early as infanthood when Ann was in an incubator for several weeks. Sociopaths have little to no empathy, but they can learn to fake empathy and thereby manipulate other people.

The real Ann Coulter was on display during a 2015 radio interview[5] which demonstrated, like Animal Farm, that some people are more equal than others and that Ann is more equal than everyone else.

At the beginning of the interview, Ann was told the heartbreaking story of an innocent woman who was struck during a high-speed car chase, becoming a quadriplegic. Utter silence from Ann. Shortly thereafter, she made jokes about car chases and joked about a suicide.

Then Ann was told about a tragedy concerning a dog. She asked, “What happened to the dog?” Hearing that he died (burned to death on live television), she replied in shock, “Awww!”

Moments later, Ann said, “I feel sorry for the quadriplegic lady, too. I don’t want you to think I’m only worried about the dog [laughs]. That was just kind of a surprise ending.”

Coulter is so intellectually agile that she immediately recognized the disparity in her reactions to two very similar tragedies and she knew the audience would take note at well. So, she instantly went into justification mode, trying to put out the flame before it became a raging fire.

Note that Coulter is more concerned with what people think of her than she is about the tragedies which have befallen others.

That segment of that interview strongly reinforced my conclusions that, for Ann, most people are worthless (worthless = worth less than Ann). To her, they are invisibles. She cared far more about the deceased dog than about the quadriplegic lady – but doesn’t want us to know that.

[Much more on this subject can be found in Character Study: Narcissism in my new book, Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged.]

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis in this holistic exposé of how and why Coulter has become the polemicist whom people either love or hate.

Joker addresses the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, familial, sexual, and spiritual dimensions which have shaped the Ann Coulter that we know today and it highlights both the positives and the negatives of Coulter’s life and career.

Endnotes:

[1]              Ann Coulter, Rivera Live, CNBC, 7/28/99.

[2]              See Lydia Cornell’s harrowing experiences at the hands of a wrathful Coulter (The Wrath of Ann) in her Foreword. Consider Coulter’s approval of attacking President Obama’s daughters!

[3]              Ann Coulter, MSNBC, 11/10/96.

[4]              Author interview.

[5]               Ann Coulter, The Drive Home with John & Jillian, KABC, 9/2/15.

@AnnCoulter – WASP Queen

WASP Identity

Coulter, the high priestess of the Alt-Right, is obsessed with race and looks.

She boasts that she is a looksist. Why? Her family roots go back to America’s founding; they were among the first settlers.

Yes, this is personal for Coulter. Her maternal roots are primarily Anglo-Saxon.

Coulter’s self-identity as a “settler” (as if she herself were the “settler” who “created” America) drives her views on race, culture, citizenship, immigration, and the like. Coulter’s preeminent descriptor for “settler” is “WASP.” White Anglo-Saxon Protestant.

WASP defines Coulter and Coulter’s idyllic America. Coulter wrote: “In fact, the natural state of the world is Darfur. The freakish aberration is America and the rest of the Anglo-Saxon world.”

Not All WASPs are Equal

For a decade or more, Coulter has had a hate-on for the Bush family. I vividly remember that, during one CPAC speech, Coulter demanded, “No more Bushes or Doles.”

But the Bush family are just as much Settlers and WASPs as Coulter.

Apparently not all WASPs are equal. Indeed, the Bush family is perhaps even more WASP than the Coulter clan.

American-born Samuel Bush (1647-1733) was the son of Englishman John Bush III (1593-1670). The Bushes, like the Coulters, are of English and German stock.

Does Bush’s patriarchal lineage going back to 1647 trump Coulter’s matriarchal lineage going back to sometime after 1632?

In any event, the Bush family has a far more extensive collection of American ancestors with far more notable and illustrious members than the Coulter clan.

But Coulter snobbishly looks down on the Bushes who are far more distinguished WASPs than the Coulters.

What qualifies the Coulter clan more than the Bush family to determine America’s fate and future given that they are equally settlers and WASPs by pedigree?

Listen to the sage words of America’s 43rd president. In a heartfelt tribute to his father, President George W. Bush said, “He valued character more than pedigree.”

Citizenship

Most of America’s Founders were WASPs. Therefore, to Coulter, being a WASP is part of what it means to be an American. Thus, she loosely correlates citizenship with WASPiness.

Coulter’s jaundiced view of American citizenship was on full display in one 2015 column[1] in which she again dismissed the terrorist threat in America[2] and confused the immigration issue by conflating various groups as if they were identical.

Coulter wrote (emphasis added): “And, once again, the weekend came and went without anyone in America being killed by ISIS, but a lot of people being killed by immigrants – legal, illegal, second generation and anchor babies.” Coulter later added, “Some of these crimes were committed by legal residents – even ‘citizens.’”

In addressing crime by immigrants, Coulter lumps everyone in together: immigrants (illegal, legal, second generation, anchor babies) and “citizens” (in air quotes, so that we might know she regards them as not really citizens).

Coulter even regarded the then-current governor of South Carolina, Nikki Haley, as an air-quote citizen.

Coulter smeared Gov. Nikki Haley (R-SC) – a native-born American citizen – for having immigrant parents, suggesting she was somehow less than a real American. Why? Because this successful governor and, later, U.S. ambassador to the U.N. – who is a native South Carolinian to boot – was from the wrong race! Haley’s family hails from India, not England.

Remember, Coulter calls many native-born Americans “immigrants,” not citizens.

The very nature of citizenship eludes many liberals and some conservatives, particularly Coulter. As noted by the Ashbrook Center (emphasis added):

But in fact, of course, only Americans are American citizens. Our revolution began with a universal claim about human equality, but it culminated necessarily in the establishment of a particular nation. ‘We the People of the United States’ are distinct from the other peoples of the world not by birth, race, or religion, but by the deliberate act of establishing ourselves as a different people. By the act of consent, the people of the United States committed themselves to each other, as distinct from all the others who live outside the bond if citizenship.

An idea – liberty and equality – gave birth to America.

Coulter’s Race-Based Immigration Plan

Coulter has a very narrow, unidimensional perspective, shallow and superficial – literally skin deep. Don’t take my word for it. Consider Coulter’s very own criteria for determining whom to let into America.

Coulter’s plan is distinctly racial: “I want to be 100% in charge of all of our immigration. I can decide before breakfast every morning. I just need a picture, age, country of origin – that’s about it.”[3]

Coulter added, “I’m a looksist and I like ‘em tall. Those are the two primary factors. And, obviously, English-speaking.” Moreover, her diversity would extend to, well, “I want more British and Dutch, but I would say a lot more British and less Dutch.”

And, if you don’t think race is Coulter’s primary criterion,[4] consider these words: “Send me a million people who want to come to America, and I will decide them all before breakfast. I can pretty much decide on looks; it would save a lot of money.”[5]

Dennis Prager (who is Jewish) offered insight into Ronald Reagan’s vision of America – a vision diametrically opposed to that of Ann Coulter. Prager wrote:

Matthew’s Gospel speaks of a city on a hill, an image that captured the imagination of Ronald Reagan: “I’ve spoken of the shining city all my political life, but I don’t know if I ever quite communicated what I saw when I said it. But in my mind, it was a tall proud city built on rocks stronger than oceans, wind-swept, God-blessed, and teeming with people of all kinds living in harmony and peace, a city with free ports that hummed with commerce and creativity. And if there had to be city walls, the walls had doors and the doors were open to anyone with the will and the heart to get here.”

Quite a different outlook from that of Coulter.

WASP = White Anglo-Saxon Protestant

Coulter speaks of WASP culture in almost exclusively racial terms, emphasizing the first word and giving lip service to the last.

Myron Magnet noted “The Plymouth Pilgrims were only the first of many who came to the New World to escape religious persecution. … because they were accustomed to reading the Bible and feeling free to judge its meaning for themselves – to believing, that is, that they had a direct relation to God and his word independent of any worldly institution or authority – they also brought a deeply rooted culture of individualism and personal responsibility. For them, the individual and his conscience were of preeminent importance.”

Moreover, religious revivals (called “Great Awakenings”) animated the public square and reconstituted America. Kevin D. Williamson observed, “The American proposition is a theological proposition: ‘that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.’”

But Coulter gives short shrift to the spiritual (Christian) origins of America.[6]

Gerson emphasized the importance Christianity had in America’s founding and maturation. Gerson explains, “The First Great Awakening, led by George Whitfield in the 1730s, promoted the doctrines of individual conscience and liberty that added momentum to the American Revolution, sending many traditional conservatives fleeing for Canada.”[7]

Gerson added, “The Second Great Awakening, which flamed a century later, created the moral constituency for abolition, and the political constituency for Lincoln’s election.”[8]

Gerson continued, “The Third Great Awakening, at the end of the nineteenth century and the beginning of the twentieth, led to a Social Gospel that confronted the excesses of the industrial revolution with soup kitchens, homes for unwed mothers, and progressive laws.”[9]

[Much more on this subject can be found in Case Study: WASP America in my new book, Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged.]

Joker: Ann Coulter Unplugged provides an in-depth, detailed analysis in this holistic exposé of how and why Coulter has become the polemicist whom people either love or hate.

Joker addresses the physical, mental, emotional, psychological, familial, sexual, and spiritual dimensions which have shaped the Ann Coulter that we know today and it highlights both the positives and the negatives of Coulter’s life and career.

Endnotes:

[1]              Ann Coulter, “ISIS: 0, Ted Kennedy: Too Many to Count,” 7/8/15.

[2]              See “Ann Coulter … Dangerously Wrong!” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7x.

[3]              Ann Coulter, Federalist Radio, 6/17/15.

[4]              See “Adios, Ann: Coulter’s Racial Confusion” at http://wp.me/p4jHFp-7f.

[5]              Ann Coulter, National Press Club, 6/17/15.

[6]              See “CPAC: America’s Christian Heritage Denied” at http://wp.me/p4scHf-8E.

[7]              Michael J. Gerson, Heroic Conservatism: Why Republicans Need to Embrace America’s Ideals (And Why They Deserve to Fail If They Don’t), HarperOne, 2007, pg. 263.

[8]              Ibid., pp. 263-264.

[9]              Ibid., pg. 264.